IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 22.04.2026 RAKESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Versus POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH AND ANOTHER ........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikrant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 02.11.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Central Administrative Tribunal, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) by which, the benefit of service rendered by the petitioner prior to the date of regularization in the year 2007, has not been taken into account so as to decide the claim as to whether, the petitioner will be governed under the Old Pension Scheme ((hereinafter referred to as ‘the OPS’) or the New Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NPS’) for counting service as well for the grant of pensionary benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that as the services of the petitioner were regularized in the year 2007, which is after the date, NPS had already been notified, and was under operation, hence, the claim of the petitioner to count his service rendered prior to the regularization of the service to be considered under OPS and to compute his pensionary benefits cannot be granted, is incorrect and contrary to the settled principle of law.

3. Certain facts need to be appreciated for adjudication of the issue raised herein. The petitioner was appointed on a Class-IV post on 24.02.1992. His services were terminated on 31.08.1992, which action was challenged and during the conciliation proceedings initiated on said issue, on

07.09.1994, the petitioner was reinstated in service.

4. In June, 1998, the petitioner was marked absent from duty after which, he was not allowed to join back the service, and the services of the petitioner were again terminated on 03.02.1999 and the said termination was challenged by the petitioner by raising a reference before the Labour Court. Vide award dated 28.04.2004, the termination of the services of the petitioner was held to be bad and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with benefit of continuity in service but without benefit of back-

wages.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 09.01.2006 and ultimately, on 28.08.2007, his services were also regularized.

6. The question which arose after the services of the petitioner was regularized was whether, the petitioner will be governed by the OPS or the NPS. The petitioner approached the Tribunal for the grant of benefit under the OPS, which claim was denied by the Tribunal on the ground that once the NPS was made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2004, and the services of the petitioner were regularized in August 2007, he cannot be held entitled to be considered under OPS, which judgment dated 02.11.2018 passed by the Tribunal is under challenged in the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that as per the settled principle of law settled by the Division Bench of this Court in Harbans Lal Versus State of Punjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010, decided on 30.08.2010, it has been held that even if the services of an employee, who was in service as on 01.01.2004, were regularized after said date, the benefit to be considered under the OPS for purpose of grant of pensionary benefits will be applicable and the said judgment has already been upheld upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the settled principle of law settled by the Division Bench of this Court in Harbans Lal (supra).

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the said judgment in Harbans Lal (supra) cannot be made applicable in facts and circumstance of present case as, t